Have issues with Singh as leader? Here are the questions you have to answer:

169 posts / 0 new
Last post
Sean in Ottawa

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
You mean some regions need the vote.

I don't, personally, think that any do.  I'm totally down with equal sized ridings, so that every vote counts equally.

That said, I understand that PEI is some historic special case the way Catholic School Boards in my neck of the woods are special cases.

When we voted on the Charlottetown Accord that would have cemented those inequites in place without any realistic amending formula PEI was the highest Yes vote and BC was the highest No vote.

Those special cases were the result of wheeling and dealing while drunk and disorderly.

 

I cannot agree at all.

There are different dynamics between similar size communities that are provinces on their own or parts of provinces.

Consider this: a part of a large province could politically have to pay attention and advocate for a small part of itself and therefore this small part could have more clout on the national stage than an entire province of the same size that could be safely ignored.

I think that PEI if it only had one seat to match its population would have less clout than a single seat in another province tdue to this dynamic. Conversely, I do not think that PEI has much more clout than other places its size.

PEI entered confederation with this deal to make sure it remained a viable province. Without this it woudl cease to exist. It has been argued in the past that Atlantic Canada ought to be a single province. If it were then you could apportion seats based on populaiton since the entire region would retain more clout together. Similarly, you would have to do soemthign about Manitoba and Saskatchewan (take Northern Ontario and add it to Saskatchewan and Manitoba to create another good size province. Thus, Atlantic Canada, Quebec, Ontario (south), Prairie and N. Ontario, Alberta and BC= 6 slightly more equal provinces.

This does not address either the north or Indigenous peoples. I think some weighting arrangemnt for Indigenous communites in Canada, although spread out could be considered but perhaps this weighting could be done within the six provinces or through some House of Commons dedicated seats.

When people complain about the representation of PEI, they often forget taht it is Northern Canada where the density of votes/seats is the lowest.

The alternative is to accept that lower population provinces have higher numbers of seats to make up for the lower clout those provinces have -- even on a per capita basis by being low population, low seat provinces.

When you consider the policies of the government of Canada, I think there is no argument that can be made that these small provinces have more clout than they represent in population despite the number of seats they have. The record of attention being paid to larger provinces makes it clear that these additional seats are more of a drop in the bucket. This is also true of Saskatchewan and Manitoba. The attention to the centre of Canada means that BC and Alberta have a lower clout than their populations deserve but this is not lost to Manitoba, Saskatchewan or Atlantic Canada. It is lost to Quebec and Ontario. If anything any balance away from Quebec and Ontario is a good thing for all of Canada. A strict population based approach would see more clout to Ontario which it does not need.

Thinking Canada would be more functional with the extreme difference in population among provinces should we make all seats the same population is wrong-headed.

The other solution would be to break up some of the big provinces. Certainly Ontario would be a great canddiate for that, but you can see quickly that Quebec would never agree.

As such, you have to use different weighting for provinces within Canada when it comes to population in order to equalize the clout they have on the national stage.

It is ironic that small provinces can have more attention and recognition by being a province and having a government (like PEI) than similar size regions within provinces and yet have less clout becuase they are not part of a larger province with the weight to push an agenda. However, this is true.

As such, this debate over population to seat count is much more complicated than it first seems.

338 seats total for Canada divided only by population would result in the following (rough rounding but illustrative --4 out with rounding):

NL 5

PEI 0

NS 9

NB 7

QC 78

ON 131

MN 12

SK 10

AB 37

BC 45

North 0

 

Compare regions:

ON now 121 would have 131

QC now 78 would have 78

Atlantic Canada now 32  would have 21

North now 3 would have 0

MB and SK now 28 would have 22

AB now 34 would have 37

BC now 42 would have 45

Now consider the benefits: If AB had 3 more seats but Atlantic Canada, North and Prairies had 20 fewer would Alberta have more or less clout federally? With fewer allies to balance Ontario I suggest it woudl have less. Same argument with BC.

The only winner here would be Ontario which is already the province with by far the most clout of all in Confederation.

There is absolutely no good argument to be made that Canada could be better off weighting more power to the centre, even if the result gave a handful more seats to BC and Alberta. The better arguement in this picture would be simply to close the gap slightly by a giving 3-5 more seats to BC and Alberta at the cost of Ontario. Problem is seats are already huge in Ontario.

The present compromise, leaving everyone unhappy may in fact be the best possible without rejigging the populations of the provinces themselves.

lagatta4

As for confessional schools, both Québec and Newfoundland have succeeded in abolishing them, despite a fight by the Catholic Church.

There are some northern ridings that are larger than most countries. Roméo Saganash's riding for one.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Thanks Sean for that lesson, I understand fully that most Central Canadian voters doesn't actually know much about the regions and doesn't fucking care but thanks for your extensive reiteration.

I talk about Vancouver Island and you don't even mention it. What makes PEI so important to you? Do you own a golfing cottage on the Island?

R.E.Wood

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Thanks Sean for that lesson, I understand fully that most Central Canadian voters doesn't actually know much about the regions and doesn't fucking care but thanks for your extensive reiteration.

I talk about Vancouver Island and you don't even mention it. What makes PEI so important to you? Do you own a golfing cottage on the Island?

Not to answer for Sean, but the immediate difference I see is that PEI is a province and Vancouver Island isn't. Your disdain for people who golf or own cottages is noted.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

OK.  But I can't imagine we would ever say "Oh well, PEI lacks the population for a seat, so too bad, Anne of Green Gables!".

Wouldn't the voters of PEI share representation with their neighbours?  Isn't the idea that PEI would have zero representation under a true proportional representation model more a function of FPTP riding boundaries?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

R.E.Wood wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Thanks Sean for that lesson, I understand fully that most Central Canadian voters doesn't actually know much about the regions and doesn't fucking care but thanks for your extensive reiteration.

I talk about Vancouver Island and you don't even mention it. What makes PEI so important to you? Do you own a golfing cottage on the Island?

Not to answer for Sean, but the immediate difference I see is that PEI is a province and Vancouver Island isn't. Your disdain for people who golf or own cottages is noted.

No distain merely am inside joke (that you didn't get) about the number of people from Ottawa that own cottages on PEI because they love to golf. In fact I am related to a couple of people who fit that profile.

Yes the colony of PEI did host the union talks but frankly more than a hundred and fifty years later maybe that is rather irrlevant. The Island of Vancouver and its Dependencies, was a Crown colony of British North America from 1849 to 1866 but the idea of having two colonies on the West Coast was too much Upper and Lower Canada. I guess I just don't see why a 150 year deal, bargained during a drunken orgy, allows PEI citizens to have nearly three times the number of MP's per capita. Did I mention that PEI joined Confederation after BC.

So tell me again, why Why is a less populated island on the East Coast more important than the Island of Vancouver and its Dependencies.  In a democratic country one would think all citizens would get a chance to be fairly represented. VI's distinct political and social culture is highlighted by a voting pattern that includes sending progressive MP's to Ottawa unlike PEI.

WWWTT

Let me ask something from everyone commenting in this thread. Does anyone have a question or comments concern regarding Jagmeet Singh? Because that’s what the thread title suggests. I didn’t think this was the “ those 4 seats in PEI is driving me freekin nuts” thread. 

I read over a page of comments thinking I was going to read something about Jag. But nope no way. Am I missing something here? Is it just me? This is what I’m thinking, you posters need a little more discipline. Thanks

quizzical

with all the NDP MPs deciding to retire i figure they have an issue too.

i will not be voting NDP in the next federal election because i don't like the way he got elected and i dont like the way he handled the erin weir situation.

 

Sean in Ottawa

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Thanks Sean for that lesson, I understand fully that most Central Canadian voters doesn't actually know much about the regions and doesn't fucking care but thanks for your extensive reiteration.

I talk about Vancouver Island and you don't even mention it. What makes PEI so important to you? Do you own a golfing cottage on the Island?

Maybe if you stopped working so hard at being a jerk you would realize that I was responding to other comments where PEI was mentionned.

Perhaps you would even be willing to acknowledge that PEI is a province and that Vancouver Island is not. It ceased being a seperate crown colony prior to confederation.

I do know some things about Vancouver and BC and one of them is that they were united into one province while PEI was not. Maybe you missed that in your history class while you were showing off about how you knew more than everyone else?

Vancouver Island is not the most populous of ridings. Sure it is an island of 3/4 of a million when PEI is an island of 1/8 of a million. But this has little to do with the point I was making: it is not on either end of the continuum -- not the most disadvantaged in Canada by rep by by pop and not the most advantaged (which would be the north not PEI).

Also it is hard to imagine the BC government fogetting to mention Vancouver Island since its capital is there. (New Westminster having stopped being the capital of BC when BC was united with Vancouver Island.)

But you have an agenda and a chip on your shoulder. And you are inent on trying to distort a discussion into satisfying your agenda even though your argument is full of shit.

The point I made is still the same -- rep by pop is not as attractive to BC or Alberta as they may think becuase it actually weights more seats total to the centre.

You don't have to share that opinion. But it is a legitimate one.

Hey guess what -- I am allowed to have an opinion despite not being from your part of the country. And yes, my opinion does actually have some knowledge behind it.

Sean in Ottawa

quizzical wrote:

with all the NDP MPs deciding to retire i figure they have an issue too.

i will not be voting NDP in the next federal election because i don't like the way he got elected and i dont like the way he handled the erin weir situation.

 

May I ask who you will vote for?

I sincerely hope the NDP gets its act together but I cannot say my vote is a lock for the NDP either.

quizzical

Green if they have a candidate running here. if not won't be voting.

CPC guy has a lock on this riding though. sadly. we should be in kamloops north thompson not peace river riding. if the liberals were smart they would redistrict us. their guy from pg woulda won.

hey if he is running again i might vote for him come to think. my mom thinks he and his family are great though she didn't vote for hom

i figure if Linda, Irene and Spencer are opting out there's a reason.

 

Sean in Ottawa

quizzical wrote:

Green if they have a candidate running here. if not won't be voting.

CPC guy has a lock on this riding though. sadly. we should be in kamloops north thompson not peace river riding. if the liberals were smart they would redistrict us. their guy from pg woulda won.

hey if he is running again i might vote for him come to think. my mom thinks he and his family are great though she didn't vote for hom

i figure if Linda, Irene and Spencer are opting out there's a reason.

 

I have considered Green a few times and am sure I will again. They do have some good policies on some things. So far I have always come back to the NDP but it is not set in stone.

Not a lot of good choices.

JeffWells

Given 17% or so are saying they'd consider voting for Bernier's pop-up party, the dissatisfaction with Singh and the NDP's general malaise, I wonder what percentage of Canadians would say the country needs a new party on the Left.

Whatever that number is, count me in it.

quizzical

well am done. his latest refusal today on Erin Weir rejoining caucus means no more even thinking on voting NDP.

Fk 'em

jerrym

[Re-edited]

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I have considered Green a few times and am sure I will again. They do have some good policies on some things. So far I have always come back to the NDP but it is not set in stone.

Not a lot of good choices.

I too have considered voting Green because of my strong environmental views. However, I also believe in social justice and strong unions.

I cannot vote for Elizabeth May, who in 2006 nominated Brian Mulroney, whom she used to work for while he was PM, for the faux Greatest Environmentalist PM Ever award, presented by the Corporate Knights magazine. Prime Minister Harper, whose environmental policies have been a disaster for Canada, introduced Mulroney at the award even while May sat at the head table with him when Mulroney received the award and said  "For a lot of us in the Mulroney years, we didn't know it, but this was our Valhalla."  May said that she  hoped "that Mr. Mulroney's environmental legacy will be followed, or even overtaken, by the Harper Conservatives." (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/mulroney-blue-tory-green-l...)

 

For me, strong unions are extremely important now because of the exponentially growing precariat, whose precarious lives are the result of job insercurity, intermittment employment, low or no wage internships, high unemployment, a steadily diminishing social safety net and high stress. 

Despite being part of a Green-NDP governing accord, BC Green leader blocked the introduction of a card check system of union certification, so that the secret ballot system introduced by the BC Liberals, which makes management intimidation of workers starting a union much easier. 

Weaver’s pro-secret-ballot position reflects an outdated understanding of union formation and power dynamics in the workplace.

“Historically, people wanted secret ballots at parliamentary elections precisely to protect them from the bosses,” explained Leier. “It’s since then become something of a fetish or kind of a totem, you know, ‘people died for right to the secret ballot.’ But the ballot for unions is really different, because unions do not have anything like the kind of power that politicians and employers do.”

Leier explained that since its introduction, the secret ballot has become a tool for employers to block the formation of unions by dragging out the certification process. This involves organizing workers, holding a government-supervised vote, and negotiating a contract in a process that can take several months. During the process, the employer can hold a decertification vote, which often results the dissolution of the union because of lengthy and frustrating negotiations—for example, when Squamish McDonald’s workers organized to form a union in the late 1990s, only to see it decertified after one year.

https://www.straight.com/news/935246/weaver-wrong-about-secret-ballot-an...

 

Tyson Kelsall, Campaigns Chair on the Young Greens of Canada council in 2013, has written an article explaining why she left the Greens because she found that the party was not progressive. 

Greens in Canada have often championed the fact that their platform rises above the traditional left-right spectrum, and as long as someone aligns themselves with their six principles, they can be a Green.  These principles: non-violence, sustainability, social justice, ecological wisdom, participatory democracy and respect for diversity, leave room for vagueness and opens their party up to a diverse set of people. This is why a centrist-liberal, like Elizabeth May, someone as politically ambigious as Georges Laraque, and a former NDP MP can all be part of the same party. It’s why former Green Party Leader, Jim Harris, can endorse a conservative in the Toronto mayoral race that featured an actual progressive in Olivia Chow. This is why May won in a previous Conservative riding, rather than a traditional progressive/left riding. On January 19th, she will host and give a platform to former Conservative Premier Joe Clark for a speech. Here, arises their greatest shortcoming: the Green Party has no backbone. Their platform subscribes to no ideology, and thus they do not stand for much. The reason they claim to be something different than the other mainstream parties is the very same reason that negates their existence at all.

If Canadians needed any further proof that voting Green is not intrinsically voting progressive, they can look to newly elected Vancouver School Board trustee Janet Fraser who, while holding the balance of power, voted for a right-winged NPA member to be the school board chair, over a Vision Vancouver candidate. Her pathetic defense was that “voters brought change”, despite the fact that the Vision incumbent, Patti Bacchus received more votes than any other trustee, and Christopher Richardson, the NPA trustee, received the fewest on the board. Fraser says her decision was “based on Green values”. The NPA is backed by the far right think-tank, the Fraser Institute. Their mayoral candidate openly supported corporate classroom funding from Chevron. It is also known that right-leaning parties tend to be anti-union, which pits them ideologically against the British Columbia Teachers Federation. First, does she think voters would have elected a Green trustee, if they had thought a Green would help bring a Chevron partnership onto the school board’s agenda? Moreover, what does this say about “Green values”? A few days after Fraser cast her vote, BC Green Party Leader Adam Olsen wrote a post called “Left-right politics” where he denounces the left and right spectrum, and says, “Greens are defined by…the quality of decisions we make and our ability to defend those decisions”. This, of course, is dependent on what lens somebody is looking through while examining a decision. To be a Green then, only means being able to rationalize your decision regardless of how just or unjust it is.

One fellow Green explained to me that, “we’re basically running on a 1990s Liberal platform”. Perhaps, these are the citizens who May and the Greens are pandering to, Liberals who care about the environment a little bit more than Justin Trudeau, who has shown support for Keystone XL and previously for Energy East (although that is waning with so much grassroots opposition), but agree with most Liberal Party politics.

http://vancouver.mediacoop.ca/story/green-party-not-necessarily-progress...

The NDP is far from perfect, but I cannot see myself voting Green given its history. 

 

bekayne

quizzical wrote:

well am done. his latest refusal today on Erin Weir rejoining caucus means no more even thinking on voting NDP.

Fk 'em

Apparently "every living former MP" from Saskatchewan has issues with Singh

https://www.timescolonist.com/ndp-veterans-in-sask-challenge-jagmeet-sin...

quizzical

he's lost Burnaby with this.

quite the article. what a fkn waste.

Aristotleded24

robbie_dee wrote:
My fondest hope would be for Jagmeet to come to his senses on reinstating Weir this fall, and then after the Burnaby byelection is over, assuming he wins, for him to come up with some creative way to square the circle between B.C. and Alberta on the pipeline such that, at a minimum, the federal NDP does not actively undermine Rachel Notley's chances of getting reelected provincially in Alberta next spring. I'm not going to hold my breath though.

The problem is that the conflict between Alberta and BC is over whether or not to build a pipeline, and both sides feel very strongly about their positions. By definition there can be no middle ground on this topic. The pipeline will either get built or it will not, and whatever ends up happening, one group of people will be happy and the other will not.

As for throwing Rachel Notley under the bus, I don't see how the federal NDP has done that. In fact, when I watched the last leadership debate, I saw the leadership contenders go out of their way to praise Notley's government for their support for renewable energy. And I'm not convinced that pipeline construction will help Notley get re-elected. It is Kenney and the UPC who are really pushing for that, and it's entirely possible that they will get the credit for forcing Notley's hand on the issue. And the truth is, regardless of who's in power in Alberta, they have no power to force pipelines through any other province. Sure Kenney is yelling and screaming now, but that's all he can do. Even supposing he wins, what happens a couple or 3 years into his mandate where all he's doing is yelling and screaming with no results on the pipeline file?

Remember that in 2015, if the Alberta voting public wanted to shove pipelines down people's throats, they had 2 parties to choose from. Albertans rejected both parties. Sure the oil industry has a great deal of public support in Alberta, however it is also Albertans who have to deal with the negative aspects of oil development. They can speak to the negative impacts much better than us know-it-all keyboard warriors. But Notley's refusal to raise royalties on oil production was the start of a troubling trend of capitulating to the oil industry. Make no mistake, I hope to see Notley re-elected next year, but if she doesn't achieve that, she has no one to blame but herself.

Pages